Ian Cowie was named Consumer Affairs Journalist of the Year in the
London Press Club Awards 2012. He has been head of personal finance at
Telegraph Media Group since 2008, having been personal finance editor
since 1989. He joined the paper in 1986. He is @iancowie on Twitter.

But that is precisely the position in which many prudent people find themselves. They have done the sensible thing and bought travel cover – perhaps in the form of annual plans several months ago – but do not know whether it will pay compensation if their summer holiday is affected.

Hundreds of thousands of claims remain unpaid after fears of volcanic ash closed Britain’s airports on April 15. Wide variations emerged in what airlines will pay for and which insurers will meet compensation claims in full.

Most travel cover bought before April 15 will pay up but a majority of Britain’s banks now say policies bought since then will not pay claims arising from volcanic ash. Honourable exceptions who were still offering full cover on their travel insurance last week included Columbus; Direct Line; HSBC and its subsidiary First Direct; Marks & Spencer; Saga and Santander.

But that still leaves major doubts hanging over millions of people’s summer holiday plans – and that cannot be right when these people paid for peace of mind when they bought insurance.

Of course, I understand that any company is keen to avoid claims which could run into billions of pounds. But insurers are paid to expect the unexpected – or at least discount and diminish its financial impact.

That’s why insurers must honour the promises they sold in the form of travel cover. Looking forward to this summer’s holidays, they must also ensure that policyholders know if they are not covered before they travel overseas.

The Association of British Insurers must act or, failing them, the regulatory authorities should take the lead. Any insurer that does not intend to pay claims against its travel policies because of volcanic ash or strikes should be required to write to all its policyholders now, telling them so.

That would be a pragmatic and relatively inexpensive solution to a widespread problem that could deal a massive blow to consumer confidence if it is left unresolved. It is no use waiting for claims to come in before attempting to wriggle out of them by pointing to exclusions in the small print.

A single-sheet letter could put customers in the picture and enable them to make informed decisions about whether the cover was worth having – for example, against the risk of theft and illness. It would also deliver the peace of mind for which many thought they had already paid.